A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[HYHYBT]

There is a difference between loving your mother, who happens to have a disease and hating a disease, but loving your mother in spite of it...But fine, you can love someone while sincerely believing they deserve to be tormented for all eternity because of one tiny part of their personality.

Ah, but the idea is that *everybody* deserves that. Used properly, which I admit it rarely is, it's *not* a way of saying someone is worse than anyone else. Perhaps my analogy would have worked better if I had relatives who were drunks or something.

the key to getting measures protecting gay rights passed will be getting those who believe that it's a threat to their beliefs to let it pass.

The few who *really* are upset merely over the name already don't go for the distinction between a civil marriage and a religious one; they certainly wouldn't go for having to take, for themselves, something called by any name other than 'marriage' to get the legal rights. And of course most of the ones claiming that it's just the name were shown to be liars in the 'everything but marriage' campaign last year in Washington. Shorter version: the distinction of "civil marriage" is already made, explained, and then ignored, so that term won't help. And changing it completely to something like "civil union" only makes language more cumbersome without any benefit.

..."tell them that he's your nephew, the hospital won't check records to find out if that is true...

That's what I've been wondering about, because I've visited relatives in the hospital lots of times, different relatives, different hospitals, and was never asked to prove a relation. Logically, I don't see why they don't allow anyone the patient doesn't object to to visit, so long as it's not too many at once or at a bad time. Again, punishing people for being honest.... though 'nephew' is a good choice; even if for some reason they check your ID, you don't expect a nephew to have your same name and address, or even a strong family resemblance.

The thing is, marriage is a lot like Christmas. It has a civil side, and a religious/spiritual side. Many elements overlap between sides, and any individual element can be important or not (or for some elements missing entirely) to any individual/couple practicing/celebrating it. It makes sense to separate the sides of marriage for the purpose of discussing who is allowed legal rights versus who a church recognizes, but putting it in such a way as to force everyone to split their own marriage (current, multilayered meaning) into pieces isn't going to fly for a second.

if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Many restaurants offer a discount if you bring in a church bulletin.

[ladyneeva]

Except they wouldn't be the same. I'm talking about marriage having no legal benefits. All the legal benefits would be associated with civil unions. Going back to the first point, if marriage had no legal power, only religious significance, then offering a discount to "married people" and meaning strictly that, not civil unions, would be like offering a discount to "baptized people" or to "people who take communion."

Even if you call it by a different name, the couples will still be harassed. If it will not SAVE trouble, or prevent problems, or in any way other than salving the pride of a bunch of religious zealots... why do it? You might maybe convince a few people over to your side, but only because the issue doesn't affect them. The instant you add in a separation clause between marriage and unions that indicates married couples will lose rights unless they also go get a civil union, you will not only lose those few converts but a HUGE segment of the married couples in the country who already are on your side.

Perhaps my analogy would have worked better if I had relatives who were drunks or something.

Alcoholism is also not a character trait though. Nobody is BORN an alcoholic. Try something inborn, like race or gender. "I hate women but I love my mom in spite of it" for example. Sexual orientation is no more mutable than race or gender, and no more a choice than either. I certainly didn't wake up one day and be all "hmm, after careful consideration and with absolutely no preference one way or the other, I think I will choose to be heterosexual because it offers the most benefits".

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

[Nyoibo]

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

only at times?

[HYHYBT]

Alcoholism is also not a character trait though. Nobody is BORN an alcoholic. Try something inborn, like race or gender. "I hate women but I love my mom in spite of it" for example. Sexual orientation is no more mutable than race or gender, and no more a choice than either. I certainly didn't wake up one day and be all "hmm, after careful consideration and with absolutely no preference one way or the other, I think I will choose to be heterosexual because it offers the most benefits".

I'm just attracted to men. Even if some of their factory default equipment is pretty funny looking at times.

Believe me, I understand VERY well. I was explaining the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner" IN GENERAL. I was not attempting to show that homosexuality is in fact sinful (which I don't believe it to be), nor that, even if it were, most people who claim to HTSLTS are actually practicing love (which they're plainly not). All right, skip the examples: if you love someone or something, then you want not necessarily what they want, but what is best for them. And so long as the object of your love is imperfect, you're supposed to want it improved. So, if I believe that homosexuality is a sinful choice (which I EMPHATICALLY don't, on both counts, as evidenced elsewhere in this thread and many others), and that if you continue in it you will go to Hell (that's "believe you will go," NOT "want you to go:" wanting you to go to Hell would indeed be hateful), and I love you (again, meaning I want what's best for you) then naturally I would try to get you to switch, or at least be celibate.

Is that any better? I was trying, in bringing Mom and alcoholics into it, to use the idea of sinful desires as a disease of the soul, but it didn't seem to stick.

And if I get a bit short-tempered today (think I've avoided it so far) it's from going to church with Dad and Stepmom today, and am glad I was in the middle of a full pew and without my own car because I'd have walked out otherwise. It's actually the first time i've ever heard homosexuality directly mentioned as sin in church, ever, though it was as an example rather than the point of the sermon. THAT I can deal with; it's hardly a surprising view from a small, rural Georgia church that renounced its Methodist affiliation right at the time, a few years ago, when it looked like the Methodists might allow gay clergy (though that wasn't the official reason). But following that with the blatant lie that, thanks to the new hate crimes law, he could get in legal trouble just for saying so, is inexcusable (though it got an "amen" from the back row). And I apologize for mentioning this here, because it really doesn't have much to do with anything, but I needed to say it and this seemed the best place.

[ladyneeva]

Love is supposed to be unconditional so applying a condition of "I love you but you need to change everything about yourself that I object to" is not love. You don't love the person, you love who you think they could be if they changed everything about themselves to conform solely to your desires.

It is bad enough when people apply that thought process to people they know, but it is even worse when they apply it to people they not only do not know but will probably never meet.

[smileyeagle1021]

when it looked like the Methodists might allow gay clergy .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*gasp*
*wheeze*
Methodist church accepting?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
*gasp*
OK, I think I'm OK again...
Anyway, back onto your previously scheduled thread.



(for those who aren't familiar, the Methodist church operates under a don't ask don't tell policy, basically, we're fine with you being gay as long as you aren't gay).

[HYHYBT]

I know, I know, but the denomination had at one time been talking about it, and mostly-ignoring the issue wouldn't sit well with this bunch. The official reason is that they were going to be put on a circuit, and figured out that if they left the denomination they could keep the money they'd been sending it and use it to keep their full-time pastor. None of which is really relevant, of course...

Love is supposed to be unconditional so applying a condition of "I love you but you need to change everything about yourself that I object to" is not love.

And it's also not the same thing, though it looks similar. Perhaps I'm explaining badly, though I'm running out of ways to try. Are you really trying to say that if you want someone you love to stop hurting himself then that means you don't love him? Unconditional love means you love somebody no matter what; it does *not* mean there is nothing wrong with them, nor that you should want them to remain in the condition they're in.

[ladyneeva]

That assumes that the condition you are assuming is fixable actually IS though. And that is a huge leap in a lot of cases that a lot of people assume are just as easy to fix as a broken light bulb.

There is only so much well meaning bullshit you can have shoved in your face before eventually you come to hate yourself for failing to live up to their standards. After all they LOVE you, they're only doing this out of LOVE, what kind of self absorbed piece of shit would just ignore someone who LOVES them that much?

[Kheldarson]

Because of assumptions. Like the ones you're making, neeva.

What HY's trying to point out is that some of us are taught to love the person. Period. Frankly I've had agnostic, atheist, pagan, gay, bi, hetero, and even the occassional Christian friend. And I'm an admitted and proud Catholic. Our interests have run from Scouting to anime to books to academic theory.

Did our opinions differ? Yes. Did I hate them for it? Only when they weren't listening to what I was saying and were instead shoving their ideas down my throat because they felt my opinion was a simple bias.

Did we talk about the Church's stance on homosexuality? Yes. But only when somebody asked. And I would explain exactly what I have in this thread about the Church's beliefs on human sexuality and marriage. It wasn't brought up otherwise.

Why not? Because it wasn't relevant. I loved them in their own way. There were other things that made them my friends and it wasn't singularly their sexuality, creed, or color. Do I believe any of them are going to hell? No. They could be, of course. But then again, so could I. I'm not the one to judge. I know what the Church teaches and that's what I try to follow. And sure, I'll share my faith because I think it's the right one based off what I've learned and studied. But that doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, has all the right answers.

That doesn't mean I can ever say "you're wrong, I'm right" in a debate about beliefs and know that I'm 100% correct. I know I can be wrong.

But that's what I know. And everybody comes to this debate with similar in mind. They have their assumptions. They have their beliefs. And they have their care and concern. And if the assumption is that "everybody who doesn't belief like me is going to hell", then yes, you're going to get some big-hearted, hard-headed individuals who just want to ensure the safety of your soul.

But Love goes all ways. Just as they try to show thier love that way, you have to show love back. And love in this case might be to just ignore them and explain that you hate to hurt them, but your path to Truth might be slightly different from theirs as yours has given you a turn that theirs doesn't.

[HYHYBT]

That assumes that the condition you are assuming is fixable actually IS though.

Again, I was trying to explain how the general principle works, used correctly. Sin is fixable, at least in principle, and certainly everyone can do better than they do. The primary problem comes in when someone believes something to be a sin when it isn't. It may still be an act of love on their part, but it's more harmful than open hate.

And of course the other problem is those who do, in fact, hate the "sinner" while claiming not to.

[ladyneeva]

Ever stop to think that no matter how much you think you love someone, they probably don't feel very loved when you're telling them they are filthy sinners who deserve to go to hell?

Love should be defined by the recipient, not the giver. Take the case of some woman who kills her child because she wanted to save them from all the evils of the world... is that love? By your definition, it is. Sure, thats an extreme example but its the same theory.

Intent really does not matter. Some of the worst people in history were doing what they thought was a good thing.

[HYHYBT]

Ever stop to think that no matter how much you think you love someone, they probably don't feel very loved when you're telling them they are filthy sinners who deserve to go to hell?

As someone much more likely to be on the receiving end of such a remark than giving it, I don't have to stop and think about it, no.

Do you mean that intent *never* matters, or only for this purpose?

[Kheldarson]

Love should be defined by the recipient, not the giver.

So...love is to be taken then? That doesn't sound like Love. 'Course, neither is anything defined just by the giver. 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that Love "does not seek its own interests". This can apply to both sides of the argument. If neither side is willing to see the other side for the sake of Love, that's when we get arguments like this.

Meanwhile, I think I owe my mom an apology. Thank you for helping point that out to me...

[Hyena Dandy]

So...love is to be taken then? That doesn't sound like Love. 'Course, neither is anything defined just by the giver. 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that Love "does not seek its own interests". This can apply to both sides of the argument. If neither side is willing to see the other side for the sake of Love, that's when we get arguments like this.

Meanwhile, I think I owe my mom an apology. Thank you for helping point that out to me...

On a completely off-topic note, I read that as "Love "does not seek its own internets.""

I was rightly confused for a moment.

[Skunkle]

I'll put my views simply. I weon't argue them, because others are welcome to disagree. Others are welcome to think I'm insane, even.

I don't believe being gay is a sin.

I can see lust, including premarital sex, being a sin. Am I a sinner by this definition? Yes, but I'm a sinner by any. I believe we're all sinners, on one level, no better and no worse. I am now in a committed relationship.

I don't think any here on Earth will or can change my views, because I'm quite firm that anything anyone here passes me as Christian doctrine is filtered through human minds. Including that which I myself come to "understand". I will not be certain until I am judged.

I do believe that the Bible is not to be taken literally. As for the Catholic church "editing" it, while I can believe that but would not be surprised either way, I have read that there are books and writings, of various prophets, which were chosen to be left out of the collected writings which became the Bible as we know it. Thus, it does seem that someone(s) decided what they did and did not want.

As to individual churches, I really don't know. I know that the local PFLAG has had Catholic parents marching in the city's Pride Parade with "I'm Catholic and I love my gay son" signs, but I don't know the backstory in those. Though I don't really attend church regularly, my local Episcopal church is fully accepting of gays, and I have been to their ceremonies.

Once again, Smileyeagle, if you ever visit Seattle, I invite you to come to St. Mark's Episcopal with me, and meet people who believe that you are not committing sin by being gay, people who believe you are loved by God for what you are by birth. The pastor there is out himself. And (unrelated, really) is the only one I've ever seen whose sermons are really engaging, not simply preaching-from-the-pulpit but intended to be things that make a person think, find their path to faith and find their own understanding.

Also, yes, I feel that I should find my own understanding of the Bible, God and faith. You may do as you decide is right, even to the point of those who prefer that their church lay dowbn the law of the Bible in black-and-white. But I'll do as I believe is right. And if I am wrong, I will know when I stand, or should I say kneel, before God.

As to gay marriage, I won't get into that debate. I have my opinions, but I don't feel the need to leap into the fray - and besides, that's not really the topic in this thread.

It is quite po